109 replies to this topic

[matt]

It looks like we're both having the discussion without all of the facts, which is ok if the discussion is around the basic premise of wealth redistribution and the differing philosophies on the subject, but I readily admit that I don't know all the details.

What I do recall, if my memory serves me (which is questionable nowadays), is that like you said, the units are built to be more "affordable".  I also have a faint recollection of some of the other things that come with "affordable housing" in general.

1.  Downpayment assistance (a free, no strings attached, lump sum of money to assist with buying the house)

2.  Subsidized lending (a lower rate of interest on the note for the homeowner)

3.  $50k income limitation

If there is anyone on this forum that has more or the correct details, we'd love to hear them.

I was more interested in the principle of "affordable housing" than the actual operationalization.

I don't think the down parment assistance was free with no strings attached. The catch was that you had to live in the house 10 years or more or else you were required to pay it pack when you sold. The down payment assistance may have been in the form of a second mortage lien you did not have to pay unless you sold.

[Cloud9]

I don't think the down parment assistance was free with no strings attached.  The catch was that you had to live in the house 10 years or more or else you were required to pay it pack when you sold.  The down payment assistance may have been in the form of a second mortage lien you did not have to pay unless you sold.

That's not how I understand it. Do you know that for a fact? Have a link that you can point to?

Is there anyone on the forum that knows the facts?

[matt]

That's not how I understand it.  Do you know that for a fact?  Have a link that you can point to? 

Is there anyone on the forum that knows the facts?

I don't have a link, but I remember reading about it in the past. Plus it just doesn't make any sense to give away free money with no strings attached to people who can just turn the house over immediately and pocket the cash.

[Cloud9]

I don't have a link, but I remember reading about it in the past.  Plus it just doesn't make any sense to give away free money with no strings attached to people who can just turn the house over immediately and pocket the cash.

Doesn't make sense to give away taxpayer money for downpayment on homes even if it's 3,4,5+ years that they have to stay in the property either. It shouldn't happen in the first place, but it's a moot point because it does, but at a minimum they should have to repay that downpayment upon the sale of the property.

I don't believe they ever repay that money, so at some point whether it's 1,3,5,7,10yrs etc... they get to sell the property and walk away with the downpayment (taxpayer dollars). That just doesn't make sense to me. If they had to repay it from the appreciation of the property (assuming of course it appreciates), the city could then use the same funds for the next person in need of "affordable" housing.

[ratlab]

What are the threshholds for low income or very low income housing? I have the feeling that the families that qualify for "low income" housing today probably could have purchased a house in Folsom 3-5 years ago. So the advantage some home owning residents in Folsom have is that they were able to a house when it was relatively cheap. That should not be a reason to have an elistist attitude towards these "low income" families.

I also don't see how "low income" housing implies rampant crime. Am I to assume a family of 4 making $35K is automatically going to deal drugs to make some extra cash? What's to say a neighbor of mine making $100K isn't doing the same thing?

Though I hate to see my tax money going towards something that probably does not have a direct effect on myself, I realize that I was extradinarily fortunate to purchase a house in Folsom when I did.

[ratlab]

Answering myself... one definition of low income in Sac County is "families of four considered low-income because they earn less than $51,300 per year".

[cybertrano]

The government declared certain level of income as low income. Let's assume that it's $50K per year for a family of 4. What about a family of 4 who earn $50,100 per year? Or $60,000? These folks still couldn't afford it. Anyway you see it, it's an unfair policy. Affordabe housing is un:coolman: . It's one of the reasons that I am planning to move to El Dorado Hill ultimately.

Affordable housing, developer friendly building, traffics, etc..... I have had enough.

What are the threshholds for low income or very low income housing?  I have the feeling that the families that qualify for "low income" housing today probably could have purchased a house in Folsom 3-5 years ago.  So the advantage some home owning residents in Folsom have is that they were able to a house when it was relatively cheap.  That should not be a reason to have an elistist attitude towards these "low income" families.

I also don't see how "low income" housing implies rampant crime.  Am I to assume a family of 4 making $35K is automatically going to deal drugs to make some extra cash?  What's to say a neighbor of mine making $100K isn't doing the same thing?

Though I hate to see my tax money going towards something that probably does not have a direct effect on myself, I realize that I was extradinarily fortunate to purchase a house in Folsom when I did.

[Terry]

The government declared certain level of income as low income.  Let's assume that it's $50K per year for a family of 4.  What about a family of 4 who earn $50,100 per year?  Or $60,000?  These folks still couldn't afford it.  Anyway you see it, it's an unfair policy.  Affordabe housing is un:coolman: .  It's one of the reasons that I am planning to move to El Dorado Hill ultimately. 

Affordable housing, developer friendly building, traffics, etc.....  I have had enough.

Every jurisdiction, city, county, in California, and the US, has affordable housing requirements.

[parklady]

Every jurisdiction, city, county, in California, and the US, has affordable housing requirements.

If EDH incorporates which will eventually happen, you will have the same thing and they will be subject to the same requirements for affordable housing. So IMO there is no real "escape" plan.

[Steve Heard]

This brings up the old question about how many of us could afford to buy the homes we live in if we were just moving up here.

People who bought homes for $175 in 1996 may live in homes worth $550,000 to $600,000 now.

I moved up here because it was affordable. People keep moving here from the Bay Area because housing is affordable. When I lived in the Bay Area, I qualified to purchase a home for $330,000. There weren't any!

I moved up here, and at the time, $330,000 was considered a lot to pay for a home here. I could have bought a nice place in Brigg's Ranch, or a brand new place in Empire Ranch for less.

Let's not turn our noses up at people who are in the same shoes many of us wore only a few years ago.

[apeman45]

I think the most vocal opponents of low income housing here may never have been in those "shoes". Either that or they have short term memory. I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider leaving Folsom on that reason alone.

I love California and Folsom. If you can do better then go for it. As for any potential newcomers - WELCOME. Those of us left behind after the exodus will be glad to have you. We especially welcome those who are happy and don't judge everyone on income and status alone. That includes the teachers of our children, the protectors of our community and those less fortunate. If you are lucky enough to qualify for this tiny number of low income units then congrats and welcome.

[cybertrano]

Nope. The first affordable housing was forced upon Folsom by the Legal Service of Northern California.

The second one was by some freaking Sacramento Congressman who was about to be forced out by term limit.

I experienced first hand with the affordable housing policy when I lived in South Sacramento.

By the way EDH Serrano doesn't have affordable housing, not even apartments.

Every jurisdiction, city, county, in California, and the US, has affordable housing requirements.

[cybertrano]

Yeah I am sick and tired of feeling sorry for anyone. Cry me a river and I don't give a darn

I think the most vocal opponents of low income housing here may never have been in those "shoes".  Either that or they have short term memory.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider leaving Folsom on that reason alone. 

I love California and Folsom.  If you can do better then go for it.  As for any potential newcomers - WELCOME.  Those of us left behind after the exodus will be glad to have you.  We especially welcome those who are happy and don't judge everyone on income and status alone.  That includes the teachers of our children, the protectors of our community and those less fortunate.  If you are lucky enough to qualify for this tiny number of low income units then congrats and welcome.

[Terry]

Nope.  The first affordable housing was forced upon Folsom by the Legal Service of Northern California. 

The second one was by some freaking Sacramento Congressman who was about to be forced out by term limit.

I experienced first hand with the affordable housing policy when I lived in South Sacramento. 

By the way EDH Serrano doesn't have affordable housing, not even apartments.   

Please, please, listen. Each jurisdiction has an affordable housing element. Serrano,and El Dorado Hills are not cities or counties, but they are in El Dorado County. El Dorado County has an affordable housing element, and each of the incorporated cities within El Dorado County has an affordable housing element - Placerville, South Lake Tahoe, If El Dorado County wanted to set aside affordable housing within Serrano, they absolutely could.

[Proletarian]

Isn't Serrano a private community?